You are here: / / DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING...
,

DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE COURT DURING THE PRE-TRIAL SUPPRESSION HEARING THAT DEFENDANT WAS NOT CONTESTING HIS CONSENT TO THE INTOXILYZER BREATH TEST; SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DENIED DEFENDANT’S ATTEMPT TO RAISE THAT SAME SUPPRESSION ISSUE DURING TRIAL; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a dissent, determined defendant’s attempt, during trial, to suppress the results of the Intoxilyzer breath test was properly denied. Defense counsel had told the court, during the pretrial suppression hearing. defendant did not wish to contest the validity of his consent to the breath test and, consequently,  the prosecutor did not introduce a video of the procedure:

A defendant may move to suppress the results of a chemical test administered pursuant to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194(3) (see CPL 710.20[5]) by filing a motion “within forty-five days after arraignment and before commencement of trial, or within such additional time as the court may fix upon application” (see CPL 255.20[1]). CPL 255.20(3) prescribes that for pretrial motions filed outside the 45-day limitation, the court “must entertain and decide on its merits, at any[]time before the end of the trial, any appropriate pre-trial motion based upon grounds of which the defendant could not, with due diligence, have been previously aware, or which, for other good cause, could not reasonably have been raised within the period specified.” The section also provides that any other motion not filed within the specified time “may be summarily denied.”

The record indicates that when counsel made the omnibus motion, dated September 12, 2017, defendant was well aware of the facts underlying the administration of the Intoxilyzer breath test and, for reasons that are not apparent, chose not to file a motion on that ground. People v Marte, 2021 NY Slip Op 04648, First Dept 8-5-21

 

You might also like
Defendant Failed to Raise Question of Fact About Lack of Notice of Icy Condition
THE INSURER’S NEARLY TWO-MONTH DELAY BEFORE DISCLAIMING COVERAGE RENDERED THE DISCLAIMER UNTIMELY AS A MATTER OF LAW (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPENING IN FLOOR OF WHICH PLAINTIFF WAS AWARE WAS OPEN AND OBVIOUS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE, AND QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CONTRACTOR WHICH REMOVED A TANK EXPOSING THE OPENING LAUNCHED AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (FIRST DEPT).
MERELY QUESTIONING THE CREDIBILITY OF PLAINTIFF’S EXPLANATION OF THE CAUSE OF HER STAIRWAY SLIP AND FALL DID NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Court’s Role In Reviewing a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Explained
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO A RISK-ASSESSMENT THEORY RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT THE HEARING; MATTER REMANDED (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO DEEM NOTICE OF CLAIM FILED ONE DAY LATE TIMELY SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)
WHERE A JURY NOTE DOES NOT UNAMBIGUOUSLY DESCRIBE A REQUESTED EXHIBIT, THE NOTE MUST BE READ OR SHOWN TO THE PARTIES AND THE PARTIES MUST BE ALLOWED INPUT RE: THE PROPER RESPONSE; HERE THE JUDGE DID NOT FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE AND THE CONVICTIONS WERE REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

SUPREME COURT PROPERLY REJECTED THE LANDLORD’S CALCULATION OF RENT OVERCHARGES... RESPONDENT DID NOT CONSTRUCTIVELY DENY PETITIONER’S FOIL REQUEST BY EXTENDING...